❓ A WA parliamentary question regarding the Peel deviation project funding. The questioner accuses the minister of inaction and playing politics, while the minister defends her position, citing changes in federal funding priorities and past inaction.
AnsweredQoN 239Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Peel deviation project, which will create a much-needed alternative route around Mandurah to the south west, and the minister’s insistence that the project cannot proceed without federal funding. (1) Can the minister confirm that, in a letter from the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services dated 1 March 2002, she was advised that funding from the Commonwealth’s roads of national importance program is determined each year and that the State Government must undertake preliminary planning and design for the Peel deviation before it can qualify for such funding? (2) Why then did the minister tell the House when she responded to a grievance I made on 22 August that the Commonwealth is saying that it will not help with roads such as that, that we need to start planning for the Peel deviation and that no money is available until 2006-07? (3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(1) Can the minister confirm that, in a letter from the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services dated 1 March 2002, she was advised that funding from the Commonwealth’s roads of national importance program is determined each year and that the State Government must undertake preliminary planning and design for the Peel deviation before it can qualify for such funding? (2) Why then did the minister tell the House when she responded to a grievance I made on 22 August that the Commonwealth is saying that it will not help with roads such as that, that we need to start planning for the Peel deviation and that no money is available until 2006-07? (3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(2) Why then did the minister tell the House when she responded to a grievance I made on 22 August that the Commonwealth is saying that it will not help with roads such as that, that we need to start planning for the Peel deviation and that no money is available until 2006-07? (3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(1) Can the minister confirm that, in a letter from the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services dated 1 March 2002, she was advised that funding from the Commonwealth’s roads of national importance program is determined each year and that the State Government must undertake preliminary planning and design for the Peel deviation before it can qualify for such funding? (2) Why then did the minister tell the House when she responded to a grievance I made on 22 August that the Commonwealth is saying that it will not help with roads such as that, that we need to start planning for the Peel deviation and that no money is available until 2006-07? (3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(2) Why then did the minister tell the House when she responded to a grievance I made on 22 August that the Commonwealth is saying that it will not help with roads such as that, that we need to start planning for the Peel deviation and that no money is available until 2006-07? (3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(3) Given that it is nearly eight months since the minister was advised that planning and design work was the key to qualifying for federal funding, when will she stop playing petty politics and submit plans to the federal minister so that the Peel deviation can be classified as a road of national importance? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
(1)-(3) As I have explained before, all of the federal funds have been committed up to around 2006, so there is no capacity for further projects. Indeed, question marks have now been raised about those projects that have previously been funded, because, as I have set out patiently in this House on a number of occasions, the federal Government has now decided to completely change the whole basis on which federal transport funding is delivered. No longer will State Governments simply submit their road projects. Now a whole raft of road and rail projects from both State Governments and the private sector will line up against each other. The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
The federal minister has made it very clear that his priority and the way in which he will assess these various competing applications is twofold: first, it will be based on where the particular project will fit within a national transport grid; and, secondly, it will be based on the amount of leverage that is available from the State Government or the private sector to contribute towards this funding. We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
We could go off tomorrow and spend $10 million or $20 million designing the Peel deviation up to tender specifications. However, there is not one indication, unfortunately, that this project will attract federal assistance. We are trying to get the best value out of the road dollar and spend that money on important projects. We are working constructively with the federal Government to get the AusLink process right to ensure that Western Australian roads are given a fair assessment and priority. I am pessimistic about that. The strategies that are used to prioritise roads seem to leave out Western Australia. They are very much volumetrically based and are based on the capacity of State Governments to levy tolls. All these issues will place Western Australia at a disadvantage. The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
The member for Dawesville can stand in this House and say, “Peel deviation, Peel deviation.” The reality is that he did not do one thing during the eight years that his Government was in office to progress this issue. We made our undertaking very clear and we have followed it to the letter. We said that within our first term of government we would allocate $5 million to purchasing land and, as I understand it, we have already exceeded that sum.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.